Does the EU have a democratic deficit? It’s a question that has dogged Brussels since at least the 1970s (referring then to the EU’s predecessor, the European Economic Community). One of the earliest proposed solutions to the problem was direct elections to the European Parliament but, given that voter participation in EU elections continues to fall, that clearly wasn’t the “silver bullet” it was supposed to be.
The first European elections took place in 1979, and today the European Parliament is still the only EU institution that is directly elected by citizens. Ordinarily, the European Commission has the exclusive right to initiate legislation, and the Council (made up of national government ministers) and European Parliament have equal weight in agreeing or rejecting the proposal (you can see a breakdown of the Ordinary Legislative Procedure here).
In many EU Member States, however, the legislative body can also initiate legislation alongside the national government. Is this a constitutional innovation worth emulating at the European level? Would it help close the so-called “democratic deficit” and encourage citizens to participate more actively in European democracy?
Through the “Suggest a Debate” form on our website, we had a suggestion come in from Jacob, asking whether it was time to upgrade the role of the European Parliament:
Should the European Parliament’s role be upgraded to a full functioning legislative body with it’s decisions binding all member countries? Should it also be established as a primary democratic [institution] of the EU [via] the enactment of pan-European referendums?
Should the European Parliament be able to propose legislation? Does the EU have a democratic deficit? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
199 comments Post a commentcomment
many
Yes . One of the main reasons for Brexit was the lack of accountability to a democratic institution of the European legislators
–
Most defiantly not.
It is an undemocratic and unrepresentative institution which the vast majority of people in Europe & Great Britain either refusing to vote for it or voted for anti EU parties.
To give them legislative power would make it the 21st century version of the ‘Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union’.
you do see the irony in your comment? you complain it’s undemocratic and then give that as a reason not to make it more democratic
It’s undemocratic because the democratically elected branches have no real power. Giving them such power would draw power away from the Commission, which is presently the sole gatekeeper of legislation.
You criticise it for not being democratic and you oppose it being made more democratic. Yeah, this is Eurosceptic hypocrisy.
Yes indeed !
Does the bear sh*t in the woods?
Propose yes, enforce no.
The more powers the EP has, the more democratic the EU will be.. But that will make Europe a more federal entity… But that’s inevitable as long as we keep the euro. So here is the question: do we want to keep the euro and thus become a fully functional democratic and federal union, or scrap the single currency and go back to a trade block, in which us, the citizens have no say in?
Trade block only only thank you
Scrap the single currency, scrap the Commission, scrap the parliament and go back to being a trade block.Since that will not happen I want to get out of the EU and will vote no in our referendum.
How can laws made by 28 nations commissioners and voted for by MEPs be democratic for each individual country. with their varying requirements. Good reason to get out
Huge democratic deficit
.
The democratic deficit cannot be addressed until the peoples of Europe are asked if they want to be subservient to the EU.
The problem is the EU elite already know the answer so will never ask the question, the only solution is to leave the EU.
Most defiantly not.
It is an undemocratic and unrepresentative institution which the vast majority of people in Europe & Great Britain either refusing to vote for it or voted for anti EU parties.
To give them legislative power would make it the 21st century version of the ‘Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union’.
The democratic deficit cannot be addressed until the peoples of Europe are asked if they want to be subservient to the EU. The problem is they already know the answer so will never ask the question.
The only solution to correct the deficit is to take back democracy & leave the EU.
If you leave EU, you will be subject to international treaties, common standards, policies of other countries and non-countries (like Al-Queda but also Google and Microsoft). It will be a lot harder to agree on something at European level without the current (relatively) well functioning EU framework. I cannot see how it will add to democracy.
You can bash EU all you like but if you compare it to UN or African Union or whatever is the name of the “union” Russia is trying to create, EU looks very well functioning and almost like Jeffersonian democracy :-)
Ott
You say well functioning I honestly think you could not be more wrong it is failing massively and will soon be at an end.If and I hope we do leave that will be the end of the EU project.
Sure, there is a room for improvement…
But you cannot seriously claim that UN or OPEC or other international bodies are functioning better.
Of course not it is the closest thing to direct democracy :-D
.
Start with the fact that nobody has been asked if they want a European Parliament and take it from there.
Rule without consent is a dictatorship, not a democracy.
An underpowered parliament (WRT other EU institutions) is one of the EU’s most fundamental institutional shortcomings The sooner this can be addressed, the better.
@Max Berre
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo!
An underpowered parliament (WRT other EU institutions) is one of the EU’s most fundamental institutional shortcomings The sooner this can be addressed, the better.
In what way please explain your reasoning
As long as the EU has no government that is a good idea.
But I think it would be better if the European council should
propose EU legislation.
The council is as close as possible to a government.
But that would be too close to statehood, does the people of EU really want that?
Never us British will never adhere to that .We have the Magna Carte which states Britain can never be run by others .
Democracy = demos kratein = the people rule.
Until the people, not the politicians, have the last say in legislation, there is by definition no democracy.
Democracy = demos kratein = the people rule.
Until the people, not the politicians, have the last say in legislation, there is by definition no democracy.
@Bart Van Damme
Bravo, splendid comment!
the word deficit is very polite to describe it, germany rules the fourth reich
Don’t be a hater. Your country is in the dump that it is because of your government not because of Germany. Them and France where the only thing stopping you from total and utter social claps. Greece will be the perfect example of direct EU intervention in national maters. We need an Supreme Court equivalent, an institution that can overrule and impose a law that has profound socio-economic importance for the EU as a whole no matter the local opposition (on any subject in any country there will always be pro an con supporters, an in some situations, this squabbling between sides is detrimental to the health of the nation and EU). Also we net a governmental body that builds a scaffolding of legislations that would be the common framework on witch any member nation can build. Enough with the zealous national pride. To be proud of your heritage and ancestry is one thing to be mule-headed and zealous is depremental and counter-productive
Forth Reich I’d correct term .You Greeks should rise up and stop this German takeover of your country fight back and leave the EU .This federal union will never happen nor do we want it and the British definately don’t and won’t have it.We have very little connection to EU countries so why we be run by the sponging corrupt cult that is the EU.As for free movement that is probably the worse thing for us.
CyberMonk–
I would add that such superiority of EU rules should be accompanied by a federal level welfare. Otherwise, a bankrupt state has to adhere to rules it cannot afford. This, in turn, requires larger EU capacity to levy taxes. Such decisions are done by EP and not by member states in order to avoid situations like “Germany against Greece” or the way around. The comment above indicates how such a process is harmful to the unity ;-)
the word deficit is very polite to describe it, germany rules the fourth reich
Yes! The European Parliament has legislation deficit. The decision is more power and more rights of this institution, because its members are elected by the European citizens directly.
Of course and it must change
Of course and it must change
99% of the European citizens have no idea about the differences between European Commission and European Parliament…
Because we don’t care about there plans and ambitions.
The commission is a bunch of appointed political no-bodies who unfortunately have been empowered to dream up stupid legislation that impacts on the the everyday lives of the general public
The Parliament is just a bunch of political no-bodies who are too incompetent to be elected into a National government but who have been voted for by people who want to have a laugh the arguments their extremist views bring to the EU debates
Yes
Yes. A huge one.
Yes. A huge one.
The European Parliament should have the powers of a normal national parliament, in all matters at the European level. These powers need to be enshrined in the Constitution of the European Republic.
Could you please give me a web link to YOUR “European Republic”- and its (un) holy Constitutional enshrinement? Viva my own country’s sovereignty- viva!
You can stick your European Republic it’s talk like that which makes us British very suspect and aggressive thought you might have learned that from history.We self govern thank you.
@Ralf Grahn
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo!
The European Parliament should have the powers of a normal national parliament, in all matters at the European level. These powers need to be enshrined in the Constitution of the European Republic.
Indeed
……………having problems finding your “Republic”? Let me assist a bit:
While on your Utopian space travel, please stop over on Jupiter and ask its ‘Jupiter-ian president to point you in the direction of an orbiting object above the ‘Jupiter-ian’ sky called its sixth satellite. Its surface is covered with (political) cracks & has a “tenuous oxygen” atmosphere, similar to EU conditions!
Definitely NOT
I do agree 100% with Ralf Grahn
i second that
I don’t and I’d like to see the EU make Britain go to its knees .I would personally bear arms just to stop this.Who the hell do they think they are.We don’t really want to have anything to do with other Europeans.Holidays only thanks
I do agree 100% with Ralf Grahn
……accepted & good luck- you wish to be ruled by a suzerain- some disagree 100%!
This is a far more complex question than it seems. First ask the people by referendum if they want a federation which should be the organic entities and what powers should they have. Than we shall think about the areas to legislate by the European Parliament.
This is a far more complex question than it seems. First ask the people by referendum if they want a federation which should be the organic entities and what powers should they have. Than we shall think about the areas to legislate by the European Parliament.
No. I don’t want an Europe leads by German.
No. I don’t want an Europe leads by German.
How would more power to EP lead to “Europe lead by Germany?” I think it might actually lessen the role of single countries determining EU agenda.
Ott
Ofcourse it would be run by Germany and what is wrong with countries ruling themselves.I personally don’t care about other EU countries problems .I wish them well but that is that.NO political union.
German deficit
Until we get independent tribunals to try the war criminals and the usurers, we will never be able to rebuild anything.
I am affraid yes, it has a democratic deficit. There is a great division between strong and weak members with the weak not be able to defend themselves in many cases. On the other side the structure of European Union is complicated, it is devided in many pieces, responsibilities and tasks. I think that economy has covered everything and this is not a good idea. There are many other sides of activity and discussion to be brought in table.
@Stella Kontogianni
I do not want to share democracy with either the Club Med countries or the Ex-Soviet countries that BOTH do not understand or value the nature of TRUE democracy!
Of course. Germany is the boss.
This isnt a community anymore,is a a bunch of countries and people,work and pay the benefits of the others,like germany,france etc
Of course has a democratic deficit….. Are you blind in there do not seen it ?
…oh you can ask questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have a better idea WHY don;t we just clse down this expensive farce instead and we could save BILLIONS
you my friend do not understand the concept of together we are strong divided we are weak. Singularity has no place in the future
Together we are strong .That’s a complete joke tell that to the Greeks,Spanish,Portuguese ,Irish getting fleece by other countries in this joke of a union.Most countries don’t even like each other face it it is finished and the sooner the better.We will be out soon and I cannot wait.
Yes, the European Parliament should be able to propose legislation as a direct representative body of the EU citizens. This is a good way to balance the corporate-driven EU commission.
The world has a democratic deficit – where are the visions of people reflected in politics? Certainly not in finance and banking regulations where it actually matters. The EU is a banana republic, but so is the world.
If parliament wanted a specific piece of legislation they could just ask for it. If the commissioner refused they could vote them out. Simple. And only a matter of time.
The EU is basically totalitarianism by another name.
Yes and it’s represented by EUCO
Of course.
Yes
nope
not at all, bunch of nobodies.
Yes of course.
why not?
We have lots of election, i don’t think there’s a democratic deficit. The problem is that the EP has too little powers right now.
OF COURSE YES.
Finally the EU Parl. must have some more power.
As per me the European Parliament should be the only body being able to propose legislation as it is the only one directly elected by the European citizens.
The EU does have a democratic deficit. The elected parliament should have more power and national finance ministers should have no power at all…
Proposed legislation? Don’t they have enough to do? Because if they are looking for work there is plenty outside. Reduce the Parliament and that will solve the idle time problem.
Democratic deficit? Absolutely! By about 300% at least.
Yes
The EU is a heavy and sclerotic structure. No need of EP, EC and all the machinery.
Yes, it should. It’s powers are too low under the current system. Now it serves as an institution who’s role is to keep other institutions somewhat in check, but it is still the only European institution directly elected by the people of the European Union. It is the most democratically representative institution we have, yet one of the least powerful EU institutions. This is wrong and should change.
It isn´t democratically representative at all. Do you even know the definition of democracy? How is it democratic that people and their national politicians can be overruled by foreign politicians who´se only interest is taking more of our money for their countries? The EU is like the Soviet Union.
Marcel, what do you mean with ‘democracy’ then?
What you describe here is a conflict between national and EU-level interests. Such conflicts exist everywhere, starting from families (well, even genes inside you may be in conflict with each other) up to the global level. This is also true in countries that are commonly called democratic.
EU institutions should have appropriate powers to deal with European-level problems.
@Ott
I am been serious .We can still honour our commitments to the UN and organisations we have connections too I do not see a problem there.
As for Brexit polls depends which one you look at some are saying we will stay in ,others say we will leave but I would suggest that the out vote at the minute is just winning as the immigration crisis and economic trouble in the EU is been highlighted and long may that be the case.We need to leave as we don’t benefit at all from the EU I’m afraid.We will be far more financially better off.But if you can give me some examples of the benefits of been in the EU I’m more than willing to debate them with you.
Steve–
What UK winds. I cannot comment the actual numbers. There are figures available but I am afraid these are far too uncertain for much more than political mud wrestling. But I may be wrong.
* being part of a single market. You can (almost) freely trade with a large part of the rich world. Note that free trade agreement is what forces on UK (and others) most of the standards.
* being part of a large trade block. Trade negotiations are long and costly and in EU you share the costs of this process with others. Trade agreement with EU probably also stands high in the TODO list for most of the third countries, substantially higher than agreement with UK would stand.
* Being part of EU is also a substantial bonus for investors. This means there are virtually _no_ trade risks. Whatever I produce in UK, I can simply throw it in a truck and ship to Germany. No customs, no borders (just currency risk).
* free mobility of labor. This simplifies the UK businesses for hiring EU foreigners. (Many will not like the idea but businesses typically like.) There is also a large number of UK citizens who enjoy working or living elsewhere in EU.
* low risk of conflicts. Trade wars are almost impossible and political conflicts between EU countries are rare. This adds to the stable political and economic climate and frees resources for other purposes.
* IF UK were member of eurozone, the the same would apply for currency risk.
* easy border crossing. Although UK is not in Schengen, EU borders are far easier to cross and many British citizens enjoy it. Note that Schengen agreement also simplifies your travel on the continent.
I think that is enough for this website. Obviously, you always have a tradeoff between going alone (and being free) or agreeing with your peers (and having much better chances to actually agree on something.)
Of course not.
I don`t even get it way the Eurocrats even tolerated this notion of democratic deficit when it comes to the EU.
EU is not a unitary state like France or Romania nor a federal state like USA or Germany, it`s a economico-political block….a confederation if you will.
Everyone who knows what a confederation is will know that the member states still hold the last say. In other words it`s the member states who empower the confederation and give it power, it allows it to do what it does.
To put it in simpler terms the member states of the EU are sovereign, not the EU.
When the EU will have the power to represent the itself in all external matters and the member states will be prohibited from doing so than we can talk about democratic deficit.
EU is held up to the standards of fully working federation and it`s criticised for not being one yet this argument is used to combat EU federalisation…talk about irony.
I agree with many of your points.
* but the “economico-political block” currently has quite a lot of say about a large number of everyday issues. Don’t you think that a more direct channel from electorate to the decision-makers would be useful in this case?
* There are too many issues that cannot easily solved at states’ level. Refugees is a pressing issue, but there are many more, and some of these may even be possible to solve. For instance detached cellular networks (look http://otoomet.blogspot.com/2011/08/waiting-for-pan-european-cellular.html). We need more efficient and democratic decision-making mechanisms at federal level.
An EP which has comparable powers to national legislatures would make sense if the peoples of EU member states wanted full political integration. But do they? A lot of people want the EU to have fewer powers, not more.
The other elephant in the room is the Commission. Through decades of pressure regarding the democratic deficit, has the Commission ever thought : we must hand powers back to member states or over to the EP? Or even, we must address our own democratic deficit? If not, why not?
I think the current options are not about “full political integration” but about “a bit more integration.”
But I agree that in areas that can more efficiently be tackled at states’ level, those powers should be handed back (or not delegated to Brussels in the first place.)
In response to Ott, perhaps you are right in respect of the current option, but “a little more integration” explains how the EU has gradually accumulated more and more power from nation states over several decades, in spite of an ever flimsier democratic mandate for the same. There is no precedent for returning of powers by the EU to nation states. The logic of “ever closer union” forbids this.
James,
do you have nice examples of powers that should be “repatriated?” I don’t, but I know too little about what is decided where anyway.
More integration is the last thing we need .We need powers returned to sovereign states
|@Ott Toomet
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo!
James, Steve, Tarquin–
I am still waiting _examples_ of such powers, not generic slogans nor just noise.
@Ott
I mean all powers totally returned to sovereign states this is why the UK will leave next year.I will repeat ALL powers returned.
Be serious.
UK will remain bind with all kind of international treaties, UN conventions, etc. It still has to cooperate with it’s neighbors and many-many other countries and international organizations. These are also powers delegated away from national parliament, and the process may well be far more complex to establish and less democratic than making agreements in EU.
BTW, you speaks so confidently about UK leaving. I haven’t exactly followed the polls, but the last time I checked it was far from a solid majority for brexit.
Yes for sure it does
EU has lost his original will and is walking to increase his democratic deficit and not serving people but only works for lobbies and corporations.
Yes because not all member states are equal.
And so what ?why should rich countries pay for others we have way too much of that in Britain as it is
Democracy is a soft form of socialism. It has become a bureaucratic heaven and hell for the freedom seekers
YES. They are the ones most close to the citizen’s needs and answerable if they do not do their job well.
Yes … Please! We need in my country as water..
Yes. Our nation needs this move forward.
No thanks mine is just fine the way it is
the EU has monarchy deficit, there should be monarchy council at its head, to initiate laws and vote veto for the insanities… would you support my opinion Яворъ Кириловъ ?
As long as I´m going to be the monarch. I shall choose the title supreme emperor.
I don’t care anymore about European ‘Union”, whatever the debate from this so called Union is benefiting only Germany. I don’t want to be part of this bad joke any longer. I hope it will disintegrate a.s.a.p.
Of course. It is a HUGE democratic deficit
This so-called parliament is just a sick joke and a criminal waste of money.Its made up of a rag bag collection of non entities and people who couldn’t get elected to their own national parliaments.I’ll bet half you geniuses on here can’t even name your own M.E.P.This ‘parliament’ contains Fascists,Communist,Greens,Holocaust deniers and Anti semites,if you’re really happy to be represented by that lot you must live in a really sad country.
Well put could not agree more
@Mike Oxlittle
Bravo! Splendid post!
EU has not a democratic deficit, it suffers from a complete democratic absence!!!
YES ! EU is helping democratic development i Croatia and I believe in all other former communist states .
Where do you get the ludicrous idea that the EU is democratic? The EU is designed to bypass democracy so a bunch of mutually appointed and unelected politicians (having declared themselves income-tax-exempt) can lord over us all without any sort of a mandate.
The EU is for all intents and purposes the new Soviet Union.
Bunch of criminals.
Why is it a question?
No. Let’s keep the separation of powers.
The European Parliament is neither a real parliament nor democratic in any sense. So the answer is of course not.
We’d only get more greedy politicians from eastern and southern Europe voting themselves and their countries more of our money. You would have to have serious mental issues if you think that is in any way democratic.
Yes !!!
It must !
We need one Parliament for all the 28 States , one for everything!
We need U.S. of Europe to increase our States economy …
Th EU as an institution is a financial drain, it contributes nothing. It merely distributes wealth from hard working profitable economies to poorer ones whilst leaching off enough to keep itself in business lunches and fat pensions
I would love to hear how increasing the powers of a bunch of second rate failed national politicians is going to improve anyone’s economy?.
EP should address the problems that can be most efficiently addressed at EU level. You have seen how states’ parliaments cannot agree on various common policies (immigration, defense, Russia, …), or the agreement process simply goes at glacial pace (airspace, cellular network prices). It is also a financial drain for all national parliaments to spend time and vote EU-level questions (Greek bailout). This is one source for efficiency gain.
Another source is abolishing parallel structures in EU. For instance, if you establish a single common airspace, you don’t need 28 separate air traffic control agencies any more. If EP gets more power, you can reduce the workload (and workforce) in 28 separate parliaments.
The last thing we need is that United States of Europe we mostly don’t even like each other haha.
Ott out interest what nationality are you and don’t say European because that’s not an identity.
@ Ott
Conversely leave the decisions on the topics best dealt with at national level (immigration, defence etc) and remove the “parallel structure” from the EU thereby saving even more money.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329554/EU-expenses-MEPs-Brussels-earn-740-average-citizen-enjoy-free-haircuts-gallons-petrol.html
No matter what you europhiles preach, the National governments are far closer to the people who matter (the public) and better represent their wishes…. and they also do it for far less money….so exactly what is the argument here?
@Paul
agree–national governments are closer to people, municipalities are even closer, and there are a large number of issues that are more efficient to solve at those levels. I am not sure if immigration and defense belong to this group but it probably depends on what do you wish to achieve and which solutions you consider adequate.
@ Steve:
the country I am born in does not exist any more. Currently in US. Identity is fluid and mixed. But all that should not matter here :-)
In theory, yes, definitely. In practice it wouldn’t work, there are so many MEPs from so many different MSs and so different ideas that there would be too many proposals up for debate. Even if the parliamentary groups became tighter formations, the Independents would still be able to propose legistlation at will.
We must never have this
Patrik–
this can be overcome. US Congress has tremendously more power than EP and seems to be working (although it has it’s share of problems). It has fewer members than EP though, about 550 against about 760. Indian parliament has slightly more but I cannot comment on it’s efficiency.
Yes we can
Yes and it must be mitigated.
yes
Hell yeah i support eu all the way
I don’t dispise everything about it
C’est vous le temple de la démocratie, petit déjeuné et visionnage de film sur les classe laborieuses. puis analyse de film.
Yes. Certainly!
No thanks
I’ d be in favour of the EP having more power to initiate new legislation proposals. But I would also like to see citizens making more of the citizens’ initiative (http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome) an even more bottom-up democratic tool.
No but it can advise when asked for…
A Parliament must be able to create laws without subserviance to a executive, otherwise whats the point of having a Parliament.
A Parliament must be able to create laws without subserviance to a executive, otherwise whats the point of having a Parliament.
We have a parliament it’s in the House of Commons that’s only one we need.The EU can keep its nose out.
No, they should have their powers and numbers reduced. Enough with the never ending debates and political ‘correctness’.
One executive organ answering before the democratically elected governments
Premature!
Historically the 1957 Treaty of Rome gave Parliament ONLY an advisory role in the legislative process; the Commission proposed and the Council adopted legislation. This DICTATORIAL TENDENCY was soon exposed as untenable- it had to adapt to more democratic principles. (hence the label “undemocratic”)
The CO- DECISION procedure was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, and extended and made more effective by the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999. With the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 the renamed ordinary legislative procedure became the main legislative procedure of the EU´s decision-making system.
Some fact & figures and arguments for & against the EP after the Lisbon Treaty in 2009: http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSINST/IN4.php
The present immigration tsunami exposes the EU’s inefficiencies & paralysis to deal with existential & life threatening matters- affecting all Members! In the end each Member will & has to safeguard its own citizens & act in its own sovereign & best interest first!
Therefore, limit the integration to a full European trading block only- by preserving full sovereignty for all its members. Possibly negotiate within a “select” group for further integration. Definitely exclude all bankrupt or highly indebted (>90%GDP) & all corrupt ex COME CON & certain Club med countries- until THEY achieve a higher standard on their own!
@EU Reform- Proactiv
Mein freund – WUNDERBAR!!!
Hmm… In terms of the current immigration wave, the states currently act in their own best interest. And it seems this is exactly what creates the paralysis, lot of problems to the other states, and substantial human suffering. Or what?
The point missed is, that the EU HAS taken over (fully) the competences on asylum and immigration & should have acceptable & prepared programs on hand.
In the ensuing chaos, it has failed miserable to present workable & practical solutions together with its UN counterparts- to offer its Members! Instead we see immature & dictatorial school masterly “quotas”. These serious vacuum was/is left for the Member states to fill as best they could/can, using once more there sovereign decision making- as a last resort & defense! Another reason to mistrust & call the EU a bureaucratic paper tiger! http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/82
So what would you suggest instead of quotas?
Alternatively, one might consider a form of “free movement of immigrants” so they would be free to settle wherever they want. In this case the housing, language, etc costs will be covered by EU (note this needs a little more funds channeled to Brussels). Do you think this idea is better than quotas?
“one might consider a form of “free movement of immigrants” so they would be free to settle wherever they want. In this case the housing, language, etc costs will be covered by EU (note this needs a little more funds channeled to Brussels)”
I assume you said this as a joke?….. So a net contributing country like the UK will be expected to contribute even more to the EU budget to pay for more immigrants to come and live in the UK?……are you sure you are not a EU commissioner because that is exactly the kind of stupid idea they dream up and that is exactly why the EU shouldn’t be given any more powers
Instead of EU quotas & sticking to outdated treaty regulations- a negotiated solution with Partners from the Arab League, AU & the UN. Scenario planning should have started in good time- being predictable since the end of the 1990’s!
You are well versed with EU regulations & treaties & know that no citizen or institution can either petition or present a citizen initiative to the EC which falls under “EXLUDED ISSUES”- like e.g. not to propose a legal act or to propose a “decision” not to adopt a legal act!
The Asylum situation need to be seen as an EU in a “state of emergency”. Asylum seekers from Arab/Muslim countries need to be looked after & housed next to or nearest to Arab/Muslim countries- not at war- according to UN/UNHCR definitions & regulations and financed by a partnership of the Arab League, the EU & US (as instigators or wars)- until the situation is normalized to allow a return.
Candidate Arab League countries to negotiate with- are:
Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Marocco, Oman, State of Palestine , Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, UAE, Yemen. The same need to happen with African refugees to negotiate with the AU.
@Paul:
I offered an alternative idea. I did not think that will win much political support. Can you propose something better?
@EU reform:
Note that several of those countries currently host more refugees than EU. Cultural proximity helps, but economic means matter as well. (wrote about it lately: http://otoomet.blogspot.com/2015/07/common-arguments-against-hosting.html). And EU is far better able to host refugees than most of the countries you listed.
But I agree, this is not just EU-s problem. USA, Israel, China, Russia, etc should also participate.
@Ott
The solution is already there, Immigrants are processed at their first point of entry to Europe, now whether more aid should be given to these countries (world aid not just EU) to help is probably correct. What is not acceptable is the current situation where the EU countries where the majority of immigrants are landing are happy to “wave them through” a borderless EU so they become another countries problem, that’s hardly “solidarity” is it?
It is not the UK’s fault the geographic location of the current crisis happens to be some distance away, just supposing there is some disaster in north America and hundreds of thousands of US migrants headed across the Atlantic to Europe, the first country they will arrive at will be the UK and do you think Greece and Italy will rush forward and offer to take on thousands of American immigrants?
Paul–
agree, the current situation is awful. If Greece, Italy etc were much more supported by the (rest of) EU, it would definitely improve the situation. I am not quite certain though how well it would work with current numbers.
US migrants may be a bit different but I am certain that if there were an army of Mexicans landing in UK, the other countries would voice something similar as Britons now. I don’t like it but humans tend to be like this.
Asylum rules are governed by Dublin agreement, AFAIK, that states that asylum must be applied in the first EU country the refugees enter. And that member state decides over asylum and it is the state’s responsibility to provide accommodation, education etc. Do I misunderstand something?
This is clearly not working as Greece and Italy cannot cope with the current influx. EU has pushed more even (I would say fair here) distribution of the burden but the states do not agree. These are countries further from the border, such as UK or DK or Easter Europe, that make EU “fail miserably” by refusing a more equal sharing of the burden.
Why would the UK want to take them we already have half of the EU fleecing us thanks.We have done the correct thing also with the fences at Calais about time we said enough is enough.
You are correct in one thing though the EU is failing miserably and it’s fantastic.
AFAIK, UK has so far granted asylum to only few people (1M refugees.
I know many Britons (and other Europeans) hate immigrants like you. But you should take them simply for humanitarian reasons. UK has relatively good record of integration and the conditions there are tremendously better than crowded camps in Middle East.
Sorry the Humanitarian reason is not good enough we are not the first or even second country they come too.We cannot afford it or have room for them.The integration you talk of is causing major trouble it simple does not work.
Its an undeniable fact that many of the immigrants are economic and the best way to address the issue of economic migrants is to try and improve the conditions in their own country so they don’t feel the need to move elsewhere
The UK is the second highest provider of overseas aid after the US so I suggest before other EU countries try and preach to the UK about not doing enough about immigration they get their wallets out and start giving a bit more hard cash where it really counts
Easy, yes- there are always plenty of treaties, agreements, regulations, paragraphs & clauses to refer to- like the Dublin agreement! The EU- a “paradise for treaties, legal eagles, corporatism & its partners ”!
Who “cares” when there is an emergency in Europe? Obviously not the EU!
The whole EU philosophy & design- including its Dublin “Asylum rules”- has its roots & was originally tailored on the effects and prevention of WWII- not a then unforeseeable “Arab/Muslim League” in total flames- with the resultant exodus into Europe!
EU apparatchiks must think on their feet, get up or resign & change & not sit on their backsides dreaming!
Sorry–part of my previous post was lost.
UK can afford immigrants far better than Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, and other Syrian regions that currently host most of them.
Sure, the largest part of them remain close to their region of origin. But that does not mean that the rich world should do nothing. I would say UK should be able to cope with about 100,000 a year (about 0.2% of population). There are many examples of sustained influx of that size. One would also like to diversify with refugees and economic migrants–the first need help, the others are more interested in working.
………………..there is a time for thinking, than pondering, than planning- than comes decision time! Those who ponder endlessly deserve to loose their country & freedom!
Ott, you think the UK can take 100,000 a year?..have you never heard of population density, where do you think all these people will physically go?
http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=21000&r=eu&l=en
The countries you mention have very low population density and can physically cope with millions of refugees, what they don’t have its the money. So other countries should follow the UK lead and start giving more in overseas aid to prevent people leaving the Middle east and Africa instead of complaining that we should accept more people onto our already overcrowded island
Average population densities are not too informative. Most of us live in big cities and the trend is increasing. Even The Netherlands, double as dense in average as UK, has lot of empty, mostly agricultural land. Neither natives nor immigrants will go in the middle of nowhere despite of land availability. In South-East England there is some sort of land crisis, but this has also a lot to do with the fact that London is low-rise. Man, you can pack many-many more people there if you are willing to live in Manhattan-like environment. (A similar crisis is also in Stockholm despite Sweden being rather sparse in average.)
Water availability may be a limiting factor in some places, although just for living we don’t use much of it. But I don’t think this is a problem in UK.
So, fortunately or unfortunately, very few of these refugees end up in empty places. Almost all of them will go in the large urban areas in Middle-East, Turkey, or Europe.
But thanks Paul, you gave me an idea. Maybe I will write about it one day and back it up with some facts.
EU has clearly a democratic deficit and too much lobbying .
Yes
Yes, they should be given that privilege, but not before they’ve been collectively forced to walk the alps twice; scantily clad, and perpetually forced to chant the word “subsidiarity”.
Yes, The EU needs to be as open and properly democratic as possible without it being frozen by indecisiveness. The EU will never be seen (at least in the sceptical UK) as God’s greatest creation but we. need to feel that citizens can also propose legislation.
After ~65 years of investing valuable time, labor & lots of money- what greatness has been achieved? The US/NATO/NSA/global money & complicit Commissioners etc breathing down our necks- instigating conflicts which we citizens have to endure? Today we have an EP with still limited powers, still subservient to the EC- just graduated & found mature enough for co-decision making! What a great achievement for a 0.65 century job- happy ne?
EU admin costs are ~6% or ~€9bn of the EU’s ~€145bn annual budget. This equals & supersedes the GDP of each of the 50 poorest sovereign nations on earth. As a caring & critical citizen, one expects & demands value for money & eventual dividends for its citizens- as shareholders- not for its architects, an army of lawyers & professional politicians!
This ~€145bn EU enterprise has not only a democratic deficiency but also a leadership deficiency- a president more comparable to an office Manager putting out fires & shuffling treaty papers.
5 years ago I would have said : YES
After what you people did to Greece.
After you force fed us these “refugees” ( funny, how they are all MEN, able and healthy and most are islamists ).
After you force fed us this “austerity” crap.
After you KEEP IGNORING the almost unilateral condemnation of TTIP and all the rest of creepy american corporate trojan horse plans.
No.
NO you shouldn’t be given ANY right to take ANY decision.
In fact most of the European parliament should be TRIED FOR TREASON against Europe!
DEMOCRACY, not money should rule Europe.
I don’t know about TTIP but did EP have any say about Greece, refugees, austerity?
@Debating Europe:
Still waiting on a debate about wether we want the millions, literal MILLIONS of “refugees” that are bound to come over the next years if not moths.
EU free travel is for INTRA-EU countries, not for every damn flunkie!
It can propose what it likes , doesn’t mean the hierarchy in the Commission will take any notice .
And yes wheres the debate on refugees?
What I find seriously peculiar are the posters on here who feel Europe and the UK, etc., should be sending more funds to the countries these migrants are coming from. Why do they feel that will change one thing for them? It hasn’t in all the years we’ve been filling their countries coffers with masses of aid has it?
Dare I ask why these millions are not forcing their own governments to behave in the humanitarian ways one assumes they are pouring into Europe to receive?
Why are these people considered less capable than us? They appear to me to be much smarter than many Europeans and certainly more devious about how to get what they want. Yet, we consider them inept at being able to run their own countries in a way that will make living in them comparable with Europe.
We are currently in a definite financial downturn. There are few jobs except those dead end fillers they have shoved at us since Ronnie Reagan and Margaret Thatcher decided we could live and maintain our standard of living on a service industry. To the idea that being waitress, stacking shelves in a supermarket and serving people in Poundland would required a college degree and would, eventually, lead to a job in brain surgery later in life. However, the outcome of that wonderful bit of thinking was, the rest of the world felt they too would be able to set themselves up via the kitchens of the local Indian restaurant. Especially as the indigenous people were rejecting those positions as the pay was too low for them to live and feed a family on. And of course, born and bred Europeans were not open to the idea of fifteen to a room for the rest of their lives as a prospective way to reach the heights of content in a modern society.
The migrants coming to our shores ‘must’ be regarded as intelligent and resouceful humans, quite capable of taking care of thier own lives and if necessary, getting rid of the leaders they have until they find ones that can and will give them a livestyle they aspire to in Europe.
If we fought our way out of destitution in our historical past, so can they, collectively, do the same in their own countries and for their own way of life. For, once settled within Europe they become totally discontent. Then yearn for the lifestyle they left behind, teaching their children how wonderful and pure it was back home, far from this devilish breed they have had to snuggle up with in order to be ‘rich.’ Until that mind set ends up with the rejection of our culture and society. To the point where they, quite quickly, are ready to kill for having to exist in such a wild set of beliefs and aspirations they once were ready to die for.
All migrants should be returned the the place they set off from. And made to accept they will have to fight in their own countries to give them the economic opportunities they believe we have here. It is not our cultural beliefs or understanding they are looking for. That is what they despise what we are and stand for.
The only people who are truly being subjugated and forcibly being removed from their homes and society are the Christians in the states they were born in. The rest are deserting for an economic leg up. Nothing more.
We Europeans do not need to be nannies to these millions who want to plonk themselves on our largesse. They are quite capable of making a life for themselves in the land of their origin. But, no, it’s easier to steal it from others. For that is what they are doing. Whether you like the message or not. That is the fact of it.
Well said. The majority of those just fleeing to save their lives just move across a single border and stay put. The rest are economic migrants using the cover of war to take a chance at entering a first world country and they are very picky about which one at that, targeting the highest benefits and the least likelihood of being rumbled and returned. That means Germany or Britain. The interview with the young man from Syria who had just entered Britain under a lorry was a classic. He was a draft dodger whose dad sold the car to get him to Calais. His excuse for wanting to come to Britain was that English was the only foreign language taught him at school. And he had to speak through an interpreter. First plane back would be the correct response to this.
We cannot be nannies for all of potential migrants. But we can afford a few millions. And that would of a big help.
War in Syria started by people trying to collectively force the government to provide a better life. History and contemporary world are full of examples where people have no way to improve their fate, neither individually nor collectively.
Who can afford a few millions? The British tax payer? I am already paying 60% of my disposable income in tax.And I live in the most crowded country in Europe. And in the area that is arguably the most crowded real estate in the world – South East England where the house prices are beyond the pocket of all but the wealthy who live here tax free. So speak for yourself and preferably put up a family of Syrians in your own house before inviting fellow citizens to pay for your conscience.
I think UK might afford about 100k a year. This is about 0.2pct of population, and even if unemployment rate is high the first few years it should be not a big burden for public finances. In any case, we should not keep immigrants on welfare for long.
Housing in South-East is tricky, but that is not just because of immigrants want to move there, Britons do it as well.
Dear Ott, you are making reasonable sounding points so I will respond to them. Two thirds of new households formed in the UK since 1997 are headed by immigrants. See http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/415 for a full analysis of the truly massive impact that immigration is having on housing in England. 100k immigrants a year does not sound much when we are already taking in 600k a year (total immigration without subtracting emigration, which by the way we only guess at using passenger surveys, since we do not yet have exit checks). So you would like us to take in 700k a year and house them and feed them in what is I repeat the most crowded real estate in Europe and the third most crowded nation state in the world, which already imports 80% of its food. Now I can understand the motives of the draft dodgers and economic migrants who are heading here. In their place I might do the same. But if we simply relax the rules and open the borders there are 15 million Syrians who would like to escape from ISIS and Bashir Al Assad’s Alouite regime. Lets go further and add in the non Taliban population of Afghanistan, say 20 million and the entire populations of Sudan, Eritrea and Somalia, about 56 million. Altogether about 90 million people from those warring nations could have a well founded fear of persecution. So lets bring them all here. The population density of England (where apparently they all want to come) would then be 700 per sq Km. That is still below parts of Britain such as Guernsey and Jersey (840) and well below Bangladesh (964). So lets just bring them all in. The few people left behind in those overpopulated, war torn hell holes will be better off and the immigrants will be happy in the paradise of their dreams where the streets are paved in gold, everyone has tax payer supported education, health care, housing and income support. Is that what you want? It seems to be what the migrants want and what the liberal Hampstead thinkers want.
Eadweard–why do you look at the gross immigration here? Those who leave will also free the real estate they occupied…
I also agree with you that 15+M from Afghanistan etc is way too much (although I don’t think population density is the limiting factor). My point was that those people are desperate (well, probably not all but definitely many). We should consider how we can help. As ending all those civil wars and famines is way beyond what we can do, we should consider something else. Taking a fair number of refugees is definitely doable. If you say UK can take no one, it sounds a bit extreme for me. But on the other hand, maybe one can do something else? For instance, help to build infrastructure in the existing refugee camps in Turkey and Lebanon?
All the best,
Ott
Which is what we are doing more than any other EU nation. No doubt we can do more and Cameron has now said we will take in more people direct from the camps. My polemic was intended to make the case that everyone in the middle East wants to move to Northern Europe and in the case of London already has done so and displaced the native population almost completely from large areas.
If we want to make the EU stronger and promote a sort of “United States of Europe”, we definitely have to share some basic common legislation and this could only be proposed (or even approved) in the European Parliament.
And that is exactly what a growing majority of the British population do not want and are willing to vote us out of Europe to avoid. We founded democracy and the rule of law in Britain and we are not willing to hand it over to an unelected Commission with powers last seen in Europe under the Roman Emperors. You know where that ended up. Or do you not know about that? If not then please read “Decline and fall of the Roman Empire” by Gibbon. In our current declind and fall the barbarians will not be coming from Germany to feast on the remains in Italy, but Germany will be feasted on as will Britain.
I have just joined this debate so don’t know if it was covered earlier. I am trying to get to the bottom of how democratic the EU is.
My understanding so far is that you have the unelected commission, one for every member state and the president. Are they the only ones who can propose new laws? – If you reply please give me evidence.
Then I know the laws go to the council (made up of heads of state) to decide on their final form and to be drafted by the civil service.
Now what I have been told is that those laws are put before the elected MEP’s to vote on. However they get hardly any time to read the laws and only a minute to comment so no real debate goes on and the laws are presented as a done deal to vote Yes or abstain. Is this true? Again if so, can I have a web site or something I can check this out on.
Committees – to prepare legislation. The Parliament numbers 20 committees and two subcommittees, each handling a particular policy area. The committees examine proposals for legislation, and MEPs and political groups can put forward amendments or propose to reject a bill. These issues are also debated within the political groups.
By the way! The best essay writing service – https://www.easyessay.pro/
And Happy New Year!
Reading this board is akin to being at a ukipper conference! Too many bots.
Should the European Parliament be able to propose legislation?
In most of the EU nation countries, Law originates from the executive – the party in power. Parliaments (as a body) do not propose legislation.
BUT…
Groups of elected representatives or elected representatives can propose legislation (private members bills in the uk).
So, should MEP’s or a group of like minded MEP’s be able to introduce EU laws? Under certain conditions via an agreed process, yes.
I would suggest that the MEP or group has a draft of their legislation, their reason for proposing it, what it sets out to achieve and the benefit of it to the EU and then pass this to the commission for approval, if need be – table EU parliament time to debate the proposal before passing to the commission and agreeing upon it in parliament first.
The democracy issue and the EU’s arrogant unwillingness to change was my primary reason for voting leave.
I genuinely can’t understand how anyone can tolerate such an abysmal system as the EU.
EU Parliament is democratically elected. The EU Council is composed of the democratically elected Heads of member nation states. The EU Commission is composed of reps chosen by the democratically elected national governments. But please also note that this lack of more direct democracy is to preserve the nation state. The critics of the EU have what their side of the debate created and in all their time in the EU Parliament, Eurosceptics have done nothing to increase democracy in the EU. To protect our continent, the EU Parliament must be able to propose legislation. Our survival depends on it. Why give the Fascists a free pass?
thank you